Just two days after finalizing a regulation to make sure trans kids from low-income families can’t afford puberty blockers or hormone therapy, the Trump administration has loosed another salvo in its bitter war against transgender people’s healthcare. On Thursday, the Department of Health and Human Services published a report—authored largely by employees of right-wing advocacy groups—alleging that some hospitals are using incorrect codes to bill insurance for pediatric gender-affirming care. The report paints transgender healthcare as motivated by profit rather than medical necessity, calling the billing codes “potentially fraudulent.”
In a social media video, Vice President JD Vance announced he was referring roughly 150 healthcare organizations listed in the report to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation. The list includes over a dozen major children’s hospitals, pharmacies including Walgreens, and small doctors offices and clinics. Standing at Vance’s side, HHS Secretary RFK Jr. added that he, too, was referring the providers for investigation by his department’s inspector general.
Yet advocates of transgender healthcare describe the HHS report released Thursday as part of a larger effort to shut down care. “This report is part of a broader pattern from this administration: Using the power of government to attack science and target health care providers instead of helping families get the care they need,” says Kellan Baker, senior advisor for health policy at the Movement Advancement Project. “It’s an intimidation campaign,” adds Jennifer Levi, the director of transgender and queer rights at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, pointing to ways the report might show up in future legal cases.
The HHS report—provocatively titled “Wolves in White Coats: How Doctors and Hospitals Pushed and Profited from the Fraud of ‘Gender Medicine‘”—lambasts doctors’ use of two diagnostic codes when prescribing puberty blockers. One of them, “precocious puberty,” is generally used to describe early-onset puberty; the report argues that it’s improper to use the same code for children delaying puberty while they take time to explore their gender identity. The other, “endocrine disorder, unspecified,” has been openly described for years by some transgender healthcare providers as a way to avoid stigmatizing or using pathologizing language like “transsexualism” or “gender identity disorder.” According to a 2021 journal article, the “endocrine disorder, unspecified” code is “often used to bill for transgender services to avoid the stigma of labeling the person as transgender, because no [gender identity disorder] is present, and/or to avoid denials of payment.”
The report frames these billing practices as a kind of fraud. And while this theory hasn’t been fully tested in the courts, two recent settlements indicate it could be a successful angle of attack in the administration’s broader project to wipe out gender-affirming care for minors. Under pressure from the Trump administration over such billing practices, at least two hospitals—Texas Children’s Hospital and Cleveland Clinic—agreed to settlements this year. Tellingly, their settlement agreements involved much more than adjusting their use of billing codes: Both hospitals agreed to stop gender-affirming treatments for minors entirely (though their states had already outlawed such treatments). They also agreed to set aside money to treat people who detransition. (Despite the heavy emphasis on a small handful of detransition stories by activists who oppose all gender transitions, years of research have found regret rates of around 1 percent among adult recipients of gender-affirming surgery, and though there’s less research on pediatric patients, the existing studies likewise indicate low regret rates.)
Though it bears the imprimatur of the federal government, much of the “Wolves in White Coats” report contains material recycled from conservative policy groups like the Manhattan Institute and anti-trans activist groups like Do No Harm. Five of its 10 authors—including former White House senior policy strategist May Mailman, a close ally of Stephen Miller and the architect of the Trump administration’s gender-related executive orders—are employees of the Independent Women’s Forum, a faux-feminist conservative advocacy group often behind anti-trans messaging strategy. Another is Quentin Van Meter, past president of an old-school religious-right group of doctors that hold anti-LGBTQ positions and call themselves, misleadingly, the American College of Pediatricians. Also on the author list is Eithan Haim, a Texas doctor who previously faced federal charges for allegedly obtaining and leaking the private information of patients who weren’t under his care. (Once Trump took office, DOJ prosecutors dropped the charges against Haim.)
The actions of one author, Center for Christian Virtue president Aaron Baer—whose group advocates “for public policy that reflects the truth of the Gospel”—immediately suggested that the report could provide political ammunition in the midterms. Shortly after its publication, Baer took to X to demand that Ohio Democratic gubernatorial candidate Amy Acton and her running mate David Pepper comment on the Ohio healthcare providers flagged in the report. (Baer’s group might see Acton as a soft target, after she made a statement last month that misgendered trans girls as “boys” while saying she supported restrictions on their sports participation.)
But beyond its political utility, this report could turn out to be significant building block for the Trump administration’s multi-pronged legal attacks on providers of gender-affirming care. Despite Vance making a grand gesture on Thursday of referring providers for DOJ investigation, the department has already been investigating whether hospitals violated federal law by promoting off-label use of puberty blockers and hormones or by improperly billing the medications. As part of those investigations, the federal government has issued sweeping subpoenas for the private information of transgender children and teens receiving gender-affirming care.
The problem for the Trump administration is that federal judges have blocked these subpoenas almost universally. Last fall in Massachusetts, for example, federal district judge Myong Joun quashed a DOJ subpoena to Boston Children’s Hospital for the medical records and personal information—including home addresses and social security numbers—of all patients who have received gender-affirming care as well as the personnel files of over a thousand employees.
“It is abundantly clear that the true purpose of issuing the subpoena is to interfere with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ right to protect [gender-affirming care] within its borders, to harass and intimidate BCH to stop providing such care, and to dissuade patients from seeking such care,” Joun wrote in his order. “The Government seeks all this while not offering an iota of suspicion that BCH is actually engaging in fraudulent billing practices or off-label promotion in the first instance.”
The report issued Thursday appears designed to provide that missing “iota of suspicion”—potentially to allow the Trump administration to overcome the roadblocks it’s been hitting in court. “I think that’s DOJ’s plan,” says Levi, who has been involved in efforts to fight the subpoenas.
The report also calls on private attorneys to join the Trump administration’s efforts, urging them to file lawsuits accusing gender-affirming care providers of billing fraud, and raising the possibility of cash payouts to those who do.
Over half of states have outlawed gender-affirming medical care for minors in recent years, following a coordinated campaign by right-wing and anti-LGTBQ activists. But care remains legal in many states, some of which have passed laws protecting doctors.
Facts Only
* The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a report titled “Wolves in White Coats: How Doctors and Hospitals Pushed and Profited from the Fraud of ‘Gender Medicine‘.”
* Vice President JD Vance referred approximately 150 healthcare organizations, including major children's hospitals and Walgreens, to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation.
* HHS Secretary RFK Jr. referred the same providers to the department’s inspector general.
* The report identifies the use of billing codes “precocious puberty” and “endocrine disorder, unspecified” for pediatric gender-affirming care as potentially fraudulent.
* Texas Children’s Hospital and Cleveland Clinic reached settlements involving the cessation of gender-affirming treatments for minors and the allocation of funds for detransition services.
* Five of the ten report authors are employees of the Independent Women’s Forum.
* Other authors include Quentin Van Meter of the American College of Pediatricians, Eithan Haim, and Aaron Baer of the Center for Christian Virtue.
* The DOJ has issued subpoenas for the medical records and personal information of transgender minors receiving gender-affirming care.
* A federal district judge in Massachusetts quashed a DOJ subpoena directed at Boston Children’s Hospital.
* Over half of U.S. states have passed laws outlawing gender-affirming medical care for minors.
Executive Summary
The Trump administration is escalating legal and regulatory pressure on providers of pediatric gender-affirming care by alleging systemic billing fraud. A recent Department of Health and Human Services report argues that clinicians improperly use diagnostic codes—specifically those for precocious puberty and unspecified endocrine disorders—to bill insurance, framing these practices as profit-driven rather than medically necessary. This has led to criminal referrals for roughly 150 healthcare organizations to the Department of Justice and the HHS inspector general.
Supporters of gender-affirming care characterize these actions as an intimidation campaign designed to bypass judicial roadblocks and shutter clinics. While the administration seeks patient records to prove fraud, some federal courts have blocked these subpoenas, citing a lack of evidence and potential harassment. Conversely, some hospitals have already settled with the government, agreeing to stop providing minor-focused gender care. The situation remains a conflict between federal fraud investigations and state-level protections for medical providers and patients.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is that the federal government is exercising its oversight authority to prevent healthcare fraud and protect children from unnecessary medical interventions by ensuring billing codes are used accurately. In this view, the "Wolves in White Coats" report is a necessary corrective to a system lacking transparency and accountability.
However, a pattern scan reveals a strategic alignment between administrative action and political objective. The narrative utilizes a specific legal lever—billing fraud—to achieve a policy outcome (the cessation of care) that has faced significant resistance in the courts. By shifting the argument from medical efficacy to financial criminality, the administration creates a new legal justification for subpoenas that were previously quashed for lacking "an iota of suspicion." This is a classic pivot from a contested ideological debate to a structured legal pursuit.
Patterns detected: none
The root cause is a clash of paradigms regarding the nature of gender-affirming care: one viewing it as essential healthcare and the other as a fraudulent industry. This echoes historical patterns where administrative law is used to marginalize specific populations by targeting the infrastructure of their support. The second-order consequence is the creation of a "chilling effect," where providers may cease legal treatments to avoid the bankruptcy or criminal risk associated with federal investigations.
If this were a coordinated influence campaign, the playbook would involve using a government imprimatur to legitimize materials written by ideological allies, then leveraging those materials to trigger criminal investigations that force private entities into settlement agreements. The current trajectory aligns closely with this pattern.
Bridge Questions:
1. How does the use of "unspecified" billing codes compare to standard practices in other specialized medical fields?
2. What objective criteria would the DOJ accept as evidence that these billing practices are legitimate medical necessities rather than fraud?
3. To what extent does the authorship of the report influence its standing as an objective federal finding?
Counterstrike Scan: The structural alignment between the content and a targeted administrative pressure campaign is high.
